Appendix L: Cassius Longinus and Longinus
Of Longinus, we have only one extant work—On the Sublime—and specific references to two other works, each in more than one book: a treatise on Xenophon (8.1) and a treatise on composition (σύνθεσις: 39.1). Of Cassius Longinus, we have the following extant works: a fragmentary Art of Rhetoric (Spengel I.299-320); an anonymous epitome of this work (Spengel I.321-324); fragmenta (Spengel I.325-328); a letter quoted in full by Porphyry in his Life of Plotinus (19) and the Preface of a book on philosophers, quoted by Porphyry (20). The bulk of the extant works by the two authors is comparable (On the Sublime occupies Spengel I.245-296).
The ancients had a very highly developed sense of genre, and they modulated their styles accordingly. The Art of Rhetoric is, as we shall see, very unlike On the Sublime in diction and style; but a tech nical handbook, of course, does not allow for stylistic nicety. The letter and Preface quoted by Porphyry are far more developed in literary style than is the handbook.
We discuss the two writers under the headings of diction, style, and thought.
Diction
The Art of Rhetoric
Cassius Longinus uses a number of expressions and technical terms which Longinus does not use: ἐπιχείρημα (Walz 556); κεφάλaια. (Walz 557); ἐνθύμημα (Walz 544, 566); and πνεῦμα (in the literal sense of breath-control: Walz 561) do not appear in the extant portions of On the Sublime. Longinus uses both the verb ἐπιχειρέω (10.6; 15.1; 32.8; 34.3) and the cognate noun ἐπιχείρησις (15.9) in a non-technical sense. Also, the particular use of na.pa TOUTO found twice in Cassius (Walz 559) has no parallel in Longinuso Cassius appears to have been fond of the adverbial use of καταρχάς (Walz 557 bis), a use not paralleled in Longinus and also not cited by LSJ. Russell (“Longinus” On the Sublime p. xxv) notes that Longinus “almost makes a mannerism of πάντες” whereas Cassius writes πάντες ἐξῆς.
The letter and Preface quoted by Porphyry
Cassius uses the combination of particles γὰρ οὖν twice (19.98; 19.100); Longinus does not use this combination. Cassius uses the combination οὺ μὴν καί (20.111), a collocation which does not ap pear in On the Sublime; Longinus frequently uses the combination οὐ μὴν ἀλλά (6.1; 9.1; 15.3; 15.8; 16.1), but the combination does not appear in Cassius Longinus. Although Longinus uses the affirmative particle νὴ several times, he never uses it with
τοὺς θεούς, a use which does appear in Cassius Longinus (19.96).
Style
The Art of Rhetoric
Cassius is fond of triplets the terms of which do not indicate clear distinctions, e.g., κρίσις, διαίρεσις, περίσκεψις (Walz 558) and προίμιον, παρασκευή καὶ θεραπεία (Walz 556), In the latter, the triplet is not even a pure one, as evidenced by the καί, and the movement is from technical to non-technical terms. Despite this movement, no distinction is made, Longinus does not use the device of triplets; when he does use synonymous terms, he care fully distinguishes.
The letter and Preface quoted by Porphyry
The style of Cassius here is far more literary and ornate than that found in the Art of Rhetoric, Yet, despite this fact, we do not find in Cassius the enormous variation in length of sentence prevalent in On the Sublime, where sentences range from two or three words up to more than two hundred words in length. Further more, Longinus parodies each vice which he treats; Cassius Longinus does not indulge in such playfulness.
On style in general, we may quote the anonymous epitome of the Art of Rhetoric: its author remarks that Cassius is easier to read than Hermogenes. If such be true—and we think it is—then Cassius Longinus and the author of On the Sublime are not the same, for the style of On the Sublime is among the most difficult of Greek styles to read.
Thought
(we have combined our comments on both kinds of works) According to the epitome, which covers parts of Cassius’ work not surviving in our manuscripts, Cassius Longinus singled out seven writers as excelling in “every virtue.”[1] Two of those praised by Cassius are Socratic philosophers, Aeschines and Plato; two are historians, Thucydides and Herodotus; three are orators, Demos thenes, Lysias, and Isocrates. All but Thucydides and Plato are characterized by Cassius as being “without fault.” The author of On the Sublime, however, never mentions Aeschines; furthermore, he specifically censures Herodotus (ch. XLIII), Isocrates (chs. IV, XX.I, XXXVIII), and Lysias (chs. XXXII-XXXIV).
The surviving part of Cassius’ handbook contains certain subjects never taken up in On the Sublime e.g., delivery (ὑπόκρισις), memory (μνήμη), and (if the text be sound) a section on topics drawn from the final goods (τελικὰ κεφάλαια: the earliest cita- tion in LSJ is Hermogenes, a century after our date for Longinus).
Cassius praises allegory and approves of it as a form of elegant variation (Walz 562); where allegory is mentioned in On the Sublime (9.7, 32.7), it is always condemned.
Cassius adopts the austere and Aristotelian classification of the quantitative parts of a speech: προίμιον, διήγησις, πίστις, ἐπίλογος. Longinus does not discuss the matter of proofs (πίστεις, and his “speech” is divided into the fuller and Ciceron ian sevenfold form (this division we have analyzed elsewhere).
Porphyry specifically and repeatedly says (19, 20) that Cassius Longinus was “most critical (κριτικιώτατος)” and “searching (διελέγξας)” of writers contemporary with himself; in the Preface quote by Porphyry, Cassius exercises his critical talents on some twenty different philosophers and writers, whom he categorizes by sect—e.g., Platonists, Peripatetics, Stoics. The author of On the Sublime uses none of these terms, nor does he categorize in any of the standard ways. Furthermore, whether he lived in the first or third centuries, he discusses no contemporaries in a critical way. We should note also that Longinus conducts an ex tended comparison of Cicero and Demosthenes; Cassius nowhere men- tions any Lati n writer.[2]
The author of On the Sublime seems to regard his work as an oeuvre, i.e., his corpus would seem to have embodied a consis tent and conscious critical viewpoint; Cassius Longinus gives no hint in his remains of regarding his work in this way.[3]
If Cassius Longinus wrote On the Sublime, it would seem nat ural to suppose that the essay would reflect the major event of his life, i.e., his rebeliion against Rome.[4] If it was written after his revolt, we would expect him to support the notion that eloquence is dependent on political freedom—the political explana tion for cultural decline; but, if so, Cassius would then be adopt ing the position expressed by the philosopher in ch. XLIV of On the Sublime—a position which Longinus specifically rejects Cassius would thus be arguing against himself. The neo-Platonism of Cassius would, of course, allow for the moral view expressed by the author of On the Sublime; but, if Cassius wrote the work before his involvement with Zenobia, the political argument becomes pro portionately less relevant. In either case, nothing of the topos appears in the surviving works of Cassius.
Cassius Longinus himself noted a total decline in the popu larity of philosophy during his own lifetime: “There were many philosophers when I was young, but now it is impossible to describe how utterly this subject is neglected” (Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 20). Since the author of On the Sublime refers in ch. XLIV to his meeting with the philosopher as a common, ordinary event, the observation of Cassius Longinus and ch. XLIV of On the Sublime are not readily compatible. In the light of these arguments, we conclude that Cassius Longinus did not write On the Sublime.
- Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, pp. 639-640, sug- gests that this part of the epitome is not genuine. ↵
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus learned Latin very well; Plutarch, writ ing almost a century later, and overlappingly contemporary with Longinus, admits that he did not know Latin; hence he could not compare the styles of Cicero and Demosthenes (Demosthenes 2.2). By the end of the third century A.D., and in the fourth century, matters have changed. Libanius, for example, did not know Latin and was proud of the fact; neither did his uncle nor his opponent, Eubulus (see Libanius’ Autobiography (Ora tion I), ed. A.F. Norman [Oxford University Press, 1965], p. xxviii). There seems to have developed a conflict between Greek paideia and Latin professional training: the empire needed civil servants who knew three things—classical culture, the law, and stenography (see Paul Petit, Libanius et la Vie Municipale à Antioche au IV Siècle après J.-C. [Paris, 1955], p. 363 and John W.H. Walden, The Universities of Ancient Greece [New York, 1909], pp. 120 and 191). As Greek was not allowed for legal purposes until the fifth century ce (Norman, p. 217), it is clear that Greek was at a disadvantage; Antioch, in the fourth century, had four professors of law, three of philosophy (Petit, p. 360); and Libanius’ Autobiography contains several references to his conflict with the growing popularity of Latin (Norman #’s 154, 214). Since it would appear that Latin grew in popularity in the East during the fourth cen tury, we may infer that it was not quite so popular in the third cen tury; the Second Sophistic would seem still to have been in vogue, with its high premium on a knowledge of Greek culture. Cassius Longinus no where mentions a Roman author, for example; and Plotinus, who lived at Rome from his fortieth year on, seems to have dealt exclusively with Greek culture, unlike those earlier Greeks such as Dionysius of Hali carnassus, who came to Rome to learn Latin. ↵
- Porphyry suggests that Cassius Longinus changed his mind on the worth of Plotinus (20). ↵
- Cassius Longinus spent his later life in Palmyra, where he per suaded the queen Zenobia to revolt from Rome; he was captured and exe cuted in 273 A.D.; see Gibbon, The Decline and Fall, ch. XI. ↵
